https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77914
--- Comment #4 from Adam Butcher <abutcher at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Michele Caini from comment #3) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > > Shall we remove that altogether, or just pedwarn on it? > > I suspect it should be rejected, unless it is an intended extension of the > compiler (for which I've not been able to find the docs - in this case, a > pedwarn should be emitted at least). It was an intended extension. Without it, a lambda argument cannot include a non-type template parameter or name within its body (without decltype) a type inferred from its arguments. Since it does not conflict with the standard, it should be acceptable as a GCC extension. I didn't document it at the time, however, or pedwarn about it. Possibly at the time it was added the standard was still being finalized. We could leave this issue open to address the docs and pedwarn unless you want to drop the feature completely?
